Home Office

Immigration Controls

Christian Matheson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 8 September 2016 to Question 45595, how much her Department spent from the public purse on advertising and promoting the previously proposed points-based immigration system for non-EU nationals in the latest period for which figures are available.

Mr Robert Goodwill: We have spent no money promoting a proposed points-based immigration system for non-EU nationals.

Ministry of Justice

Featherstone Prison

Louise Haigh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much has been levied in financial remedies relating to each key performance indicator in the contractual agreement between his Department and HM Prison Featherstone II in each year since 2011.

Louise Haigh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much was levied in respect of financial remedies in each key performance indicator designated in respect of the contractual agreement between his Department and G4S Care and Justice Services (UK) Limited at HM Prison Birmingham in each year since 2011.

Mr Sam Gyimah: Well-run prisons are fundamental to the proper functioning of our justice system, and a vital part of our reform plans. Private providers play an important role in the prison estate. Performance of all providers is closely monitored and we will not hesitate to take action where standards fall short. All private prisons are managed by a full-time, on-site controller. Where a provider fails to meet the expected level of performance, financial remedies can be applied. This ensures that providers are incentivised to properly support the rehabilitation of offenders through a safe, decent and secure regime. The attached table provides a breakdown of financial remedies applied for both HMP Birmingham and HMP Oakwood (HMP Featherstone II was the working name during construction of HMP Oakwood). No financial remedies were applied at either prison in 2011/12. Operation of HMP Birmingham transferred from HM Prison Service to G4S Justice Services in October 2011. HMP Oakwood opened in April 2012.

Prison Sentences

Jim McMahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people have been sentenced to a term in prison for (a) non-payment of council tax, (b) watching television broadcasts without a television licence and (c) tax evasion in each year from 2008-09 to 2014-15.

Mr Sam Gyimah: The law and penalties in these three areas are different. The Government takes tax evasion very seriously. There is no single definition of “tax evasion” so there are several offences under which those who evade taxes can be prosecuted, with a maximum penalty of up to 7 years for the most serious cases under c) below. Watching television broadcasts without a television licence is also a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of a fine. Non-payment of council tax is not a criminal offence. Where a person fails to pay the council tax after it has been demanded, the local authority may apply to the magistrates’ court for a liability order. Liability orders are granted for the amount owed plus reasonable costs. If they are still not paid the local authority can apply for a warrant committing an individual to prison; an individual cannot be fined for non-payment of council tax. a) The number of people imprisoned following non-payment of council tax in England and Wales, by financial year from 2009/10 to 2014/15 can be viewed in table 1. The magistrates’ courts have been using their centralised case management system since early 2009 so data are only available from 2009/10.b) Immediate custody is not an available sentence for TV licence evasion; the maximum sentence is a fine.c) The number of offenders sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for offences relating to tax evasion, in England & Wales, by financial year from 2008/09 to 2014/15, can be viewed in table 2. Table 1.Individuals imprisoned for non-payment of Council tax 2009-10 to 2014-15  YearTotal   2009-10121   2010-11112   2011-12117   2012-1398   2013-14110   2014-1586   Notes:Data are only available from 2009-10 onwards as Libra, the centralised case management system, has only been in use since early 2009.The date is based on case completion date.The report looks only at 'Complaint for Council Tax Committal Application' and 'Complaint for Council Tax Liability'.  The Total Imprisoned includes Committal to prison, Detention until court rises, Imprisonment and Imprisonment in default. After the warrant is issued the defendant can pay the warrant in full or part payment in lieu of custody. Table 2. Number of offenders sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for offences relating to tax evasion(1), England & Wales, by financial year 2008/09 to 2014/15(2)(3)   2008/09 24 2009/10 7 2010/11 5 2011/12 20 2012/13 21 2013/14 23 2014/15 31   (1) Covers the following offences:   Sch.1 P.8(1) & Sch.1 P.8(2) Car Tax Act 1983  S.167 (1) Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 S.144 Finance Act 2000S.95 Finance Act 2003SS.10(5),10(6), 13(3), 13(4),14(6) & 14(7) Hydrocarbon Oil (Duties) Act 1979S.35 Tax Credits Act 2002S.72(3) & S 72(1) (8)Valueadded Tax Act 1994(2) The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.  (3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.  Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.

Remand in Custody: Crimes of Violence

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in (a) how many and (b) what proportion of cases involving common assault was someone remanded in custody prior to their conviction in the two years (i) prior to and (ii) following the introduction of the associated person exception to bail.

Mr Sam Gyimah: The number and proportion of offenders appearing at the Crown Court for offences of common assault and battery who were remanded in custody prior to their conviction, in England and Wales, 2010 to 2014, can be viewed in the table below. The table also includes data on remand status for offenders convicted of common assault and battery in the magistrates’ court between 2013 and 2014. Unfortunately data prior to 2013 could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Court proceedings data for 2016 are planned for publication in summer 2017. The number and proportion of offenders(1) appearing at the Crown Court for offences of common assault and battery who were remanded in custody(2) prior to their conviction, England and Wales, 2010 - 2014(3) (4) (5)Year  201020112012(6)20132014Offenders remanded in custody prior to conviction for common assault and battery 515534391450562   Proportion of offenders remanded in custody prior to conviction for common assault and battery(7) 24.127.826.933.140.8   (1) Excludes persons where sex "Not Stated" and other offenders, i.e. companies, public bodies, etc.'(2) Includes those who were remanded in custody prior to conviction who may also have been granted bail on another occasion prior to conviction.(3) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When an offender has been cautioned for or found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.(4) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.(5) Data will not necessarily match published remanded in custody data. This is because the published data are produced using a different methodology, whereby one principal remand status involving the greatest degree of court control is determined. A defendant would be counted as remanded in custody if at any period of the trial he or she was given custodial remand.(6) The 'associated person exception to bail' provision came into force on 3rd December 2012 A defendant need not be granted bail if there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would commit an offence on bail by engaging in conduct that would or would be likely to cause physical or mental injury or fear of the same to an associated person. ‘Associated person’ is defined in section 62 Family Law Act 1996’.(7) As a proportion of all offenders convicted at the Crown Court for offences of common assault and battery.Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.